[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20101209225833.GA25750@srcf.ucam.org>
Date: Thu, 9 Dec 2010 22:58:33 +0000
From: Matthew Garrett <mjg59@...f.ucam.org>
To: "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>
Cc: x86@...nel.org, linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org, lenb@...nel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/3] X86: Revamp reboot behaviour to match Windows more
closely
On Thu, Dec 09, 2010 at 02:53:35PM -0800, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
> On 12/09/2010 02:51 PM, Matthew Garrett wrote:
>> I'm afraid I don't understand your argument. The date cutoff would be on
>> the order of 2001 (anything after this will have been tested with XP).
>> The spec that defines this behaviour only came into existence in August
>> 2000, and any older hardware will be missing the flag that indicates
>> that this feature is supported. It doesn't seem realistic to believe
>> that there's any real body of hardware that sets the flag but otherwise
>> has a broken implementation.
>>
>
> 2001 is probably a good date, then.
>
> It's pretty safe you'll see the bit being set on systems which are older
> than that, even if it was not defined at the time it was created -- just
> being garbage. That's par for the course in BIOS land.
There's a revision field in the FADT. They'd need to simultaneously
provide an incorrect revision *and* by pure luck set the 10th bit of a
32-bit register. Is it possible? Yes. Is it likely? No, and I don't see
a benefit in adding extra code to force hardware into a less-tested
configuration.
--
Matthew Garrett | mjg59@...f.ucam.org
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists